Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

A fairer way to support children?

53 replies

YoureBeingASillyBilly · 25/05/2014 12:44

There has been much talk recently regarding the planned reforms of the CSA and what that will mean for it's service users and most importantly, the children whose interests it was created to look after.

I have been thinking about this topic on and off for a few years and i think there is a fairer way to distibute the financial support needed to raise children that doesnt leave parents at the mercy of each other nor leave children without the support they are entitled to.

I have been asked to start a thread here with a view to laying out my thoughts in a way that allows others to discuss the pros and cons and the possibility of bringing something feasible to the attention of our MPs in the hope that a better system could be implemented in the future.

To start i think it would be extremely easy for the powers that be to calculate a national weekly cost of raising a child. Highly likely that this figure already exists and is recalculated annually.

Using this figure it would then be possible to divide it in two and apportion half to each parent of a child. The figure would be a national minimum that every parent would pay until/unless they were earning above a specified income threshold at which point the individual's contribution would increase according to income.

How does this get to the child? When a child is registered at birth, both parents would automatically be registered in the tax system as liable to pay a 'child tax' that would be desuctable from source, either their working salary/self employed income or their benefits if applicable.

This tax would then be redistributed (with a govt contribution if eligible) in a weekly/four weekly payment in the same way as child benefit is currently paid. I.e; into the account of the person registered to receive CB.

For parents who are in a relationship this may not seem necessary but this system would really come into it's own in the event of a relationship break down when household finances are divided.

For couples who separate this system would mean no need for arranging child maintenance, this would be an extremely important factor in the case of domestic violence or partners who have been financially abusive. No contact eould be required between the two parties as the payment would just continue to be taken from both parent's source of income and paid to the Govt. at a rate decided by the Govt and paid at a rate decised by the Govt.

It removes the opportunity for either party to harrass or abuse the other using the threat of witholding money or that of subjecting them to constant harrassment from the collection agency.

It would also mean that the parent with care could depend on a set amount coming in on a set date with no fluctuations or 'non payment' of support. It would be paid every week/4 weeks without fail and at the same rate.

It would be possible to have a variation in the payment for parents who share care so that 50/50 care would mean each parent received half of the total payment and so on for different arrangements. Both parents would get the payement to reflect the amount of physical care they provide.

There has been much mention of the difficulty in getting a child maintenance award from non resident parents who are self employed and claim to earn very little. This would no longer have an impact on the parent with care and child. They would recieve their weekly/4 weekly payment regardless of whether the NRP paid. The NRP who didnt pay their child tax would be creating a tax debt with the Govt just the same as if they didnt pay tax on their earnings and it would be the Govt who were responsible for reclaiming that debt not the PWC. A non paying parent would have NO IMPACT on the child who would get their child support without fail.

I think one of the most important points here is that this system requires equal contribution from both parents. Both parents have to pay, both parents will receive it in a rate that reflects the physical time they care for their child. If either parent doesnt pay, they owe the Govt and will be pursued by the Govt and not the other parent. Each parent bares no responsibility and has no power over whether the other parent pays, nor how much the other pays. And most importantly, the child gets the support regardless of whether a parent pays or not.

I think i've mentioned all the points i intended to but will post any more that come to me. I'm really interested in hearing any thoughts on this and ideas to tweak it and make it even better an more workable so that we may one day have something that resembles a fair system for supporting children.

OP posts:
Lioninthesun · 25/05/2014 20:46

Hello Silly !
I think another key point to mention is that this, being a govt body, is not going to cost as much as outsourcing to a company such as CSA. Effectively you are simply separating the self employed out to focus on as they are not in the current system (i.e could attempt to cheat govt out of tax as happens already). However with this in place the tax office can see far clearer who is doing this in relation to child maintenance costs. It would mean that the money spent is focused on the trouble makers and should in turn recoup tax that would benefit the system as a whole.

The societal issue is one that I think is very very slowly changing. More and more people need to use the current CSA system and for them it is merely an education in that those who pay and are honest are being shafted by those who don't and aren't.

Original poster
YoureBeingASillyBilly · 25/05/2014 17:02

You see people's lives are much more complicated and cannot be simply defined by a "national weekly cost". Such a figure would not be representative to most of the population. For example it would be probably too generous to those who are on low incomes and paltry for the rich. In short one size doesn't fit all.

It is in practise right now. They work out a NMW, a tax credit threshold, a housing benefit allowance, JSA and IS, DLA. All these figures are based on what 'they' deem sufficient for that particular need.
As for too generous? Who do you know on a low income that would find that a problem? Too paltry? The figure would rise in relation to your income once earning above a specified amount. The rich would have a figure that was a percentage of their income. Also, the fact they would be rich would indicate they have a bit extra to make up for whatever they felt they werent getting.

It would also involve a lot of administration which further increases the cost and chances of mistakes

Every system involves administration and has a risk of mistakes. I would argue that a system that pays a regular set amount on a regular date from one source would be easier to administer than one with millions of different amounts from different sources on different dates. The fact that it would be deducted at source like earnings tax would mean the only people who would need 'chasing' for it would be Self employed NRPs who refused to declare an income.

One of the biggest problems of the original CSA was the complex formula that left some NRP's literally with nothing to live off and took far too long to calculate.

I have never heard of a CSA award of 100% of NRP's income. 40% is the highest i am aware of and that included arrears. The simplicity of this system is that everyone earning below a certain threshold would be the set amount, lets call it £X. Those earning above the threshold would pay £X plus (example) 15% of their income earned above the threshold.

Plus from an electoral point of view anyone suggesting such a 'tax' would I fear by choosing electoral suicide

I totally agree with you on this point. But the tories managed to get in last time despite the entire country knowing what they had planned. I mean the bedroom tax benefits who amongst those that pay it? A children's tax (could be named differently) gets paid directly back to the children.

Finally the problem here isn't the government and the law. It's societal attitudes. We as a society let people get away with non-payment and often we don't say a thing. I've long argued that if we treated persistent non-payers with the same venom as we do with drunk drivers then most would fall into line.

You are right, this is a societal issue. Much like racism, disability discrimination, sexual discrimination, child abuse, domestic violence. Interestingly laws have been created to protect the rights of all those affected by the things i mention. Society must have the support of the law and our government in order for these attitudes to take root. Otherwise those laws would not need to exist, society would have just changed itself surely? A change in attitudes will happen when those with the attitude problem are told by those in power that they are wrong. If the Government tells us that raising children is the responsibility of both parents and implements a policy that supports that then attitudes will start changing. We cant just sit and wait for it to happen because it wont. This needs to be directed.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 25/05/2014 16:14

I can see your logic and hypothetically it has some merit. However in the real world it would fall down faster than the current CSA debacle would.

You see people's lives are much more complicated and cannot be simply defined by a "national weekly cost". Such a figure would not be representative to most of the population. For example it would be probably too generous to those who are on low incomes and paltry for the rich. In short one size doesn't fit all.

It would also involve a lot of administration which further increases the cost and chances of mistakes. One of the biggest problems of the original CSA was the complex formula that left some NRP's literally with nothing to live off and took far too long to calculate.

Any child maintenance system has to be quick and suit most people (it will never suit everyone). We really don't want an army of bureaucrats spending months calculating what in many cases would be eaten up in staff costs.

Plus from an electoral point of view anyone suggesting such a 'tax' would I fear by choosing electoral suicide. Chasing errant parents is good politics. Imposing a tax on having children.....good luck with that one.

Finally the problem here isn't the government and the law. It's societal attitudes. We as a society let people get away with non-payment and often we don't say a thing. I've long argued that if we treated persistent non-payers with the same venom as we do with drunk drivers then most would fall into line.

If they are getting grief of friends & family and losing girlfriends because they're not contributing to their old family then I think that's much more effective than yet another law. But all too often we side with the non-payer and brand the ex as a moneygrabber.

The thing I've learned about being a single parent is that there are usually two sides to every story and that the government cannot solve these problems for us with a wave of the legislative wand.

Swipe left for the next trending thread